Prosecutors Ask State High Court To Reconsider Aparo Retrial Ruling

August 20, 1992|By STEVE JENSEN; Courant Staff Writer

Arguing that a recent Connecticut Supreme Court ruling unfairly damaged the case against Karin Aparo in the murder of her mother, state prosecutors Wednesday asked the court to reconsider its decision.

The ruling, made Aug. 10, allows the state to retry Aparo on a charge that she conspired with her boyfriend to kill Joyce Aparo in 1987. But it also prohibits some key evidence from being used against her in the second trial.

Judith Rossi, an assistant state's attorney who co-wrote the motion, said the high court's ruling places an unfair burden on the state.

"We think the court mistakenly interpreted the case law" on the legal matters in question, she said.

Aparo's attorney, Hubert J. Santos, would not comment.

Dennis Coleman, Aparo's boyfriend at the time of the crime, pleaded guilty to strangling Joyce Aparo in her Glastonbury condominium, and is serving a 34-year murder sentence. He testified at Aparo's 1990 trial that she begged him to kill her mother.

Aparo was not in Glastonbury when her mother was murdered, but the state says she is culpable because, among other evidence, she told Coleman her mother would be home alone on the night of the crime.

Aparo, 21, was acquitted of being an accessory in the murder, but the jury could not agree on the conspiracy charge.

Superior Court Judge Richard A. Damiani subsequently ruled that the state could retry Aparo on the conspiracy count, and that all of the evidence used in the first trial could be presented again.

Santos appealed that ruling to the Connecticut Supreme Court, contending that a retrial would be double jeopardy. He lost that argument, but won a partial victory when the court said that the state would be limited in the evidence it could use in the second trial.

The high court said, for example, that some of Coleman's testimony -- crucial to the state's case -- likely would be barred. More evidence could be excluded, the court said, if the defense

could convince the retrial judge that the original jury doubted the truth of the evidence when it cleared Aparo of the accessory count.

Rossi said it is absurd to expect a judge to read the minds of the first jury.

"It's almost impossible for a judge to do that," she said.

The high court may decide not to even consider the state's latest argument. A ruling is not expected for several weeks